# Smokers Need Not Apply!



## Smokin Easy (Apr 7, 2011)

Ok a little history on this first. I'm working in Iraq right now as a contractor. My contract is coming quickly to a close and I need to find a job back home, enter story. 

So I was online today and was looking for jobs to apply for back in the states. I'm desperate at this point (not a lot out there in my field I haven't already applied for) and started looking at the general labor jobs with the staffing agencies. I've done this in the past and found this to be an alright solution while I continued to look for full time work. 

I came across a job working with a local staffing agency working for a local yacht manufacturer. The job seemed ok and was paying better than the average for the temp jobs. Yet when I kept scrolling down the screen that's when I saw under the qualifcations "Smokers need not apply"! What can they do that! Well obviously they can cuz it's up there but isn't that blatant discrimination! 

It really got me riled up. I mean how is it that they are going to tell me just because I enjoy a cigar on occasion that they won't even consider me for a job. Before you know it every company out there is going to try to tell you how to live your personal life if you want to work for them! 

"Um I'm sorry sir we can't hire you because you don't use single ply toilet paper. Double-ply just isn't eco-firiendly"

Ridiculous.


----------



## JGD (Mar 2, 2009)

It is discrimination, but not the kind that is illegal. My bet is that they don't want cigarette smokers because they have past experience with people taking too many smoke breaks. 

If you really want to job, apply, and then simply don't smoke cigars while on break.


----------



## DSturg369 (Apr 6, 2008)

I feel your pain Bro! Seems like smokers are treated worse than child molesters.


----------



## Strickland (Feb 15, 2011)

I hate this crap as much as anybody, but it may not be 100% discrimination. The listing was for a yacht manufacturer -there could be explosive chemicals on site, for instance.

More likely it's because soon all employers will be required to provide insurance for their workers and smokers are more expensive to insure.


----------



## TXsmoker (Sep 6, 2010)

Im guessing in their case, its like Strickland said, flamible stuff, and would apply mainly to cigarette smokers. To take an hourly smoke break would probably take a 20 min walk to somewhere not company land. By the time you get back from one smoke break, you would be getting ready for the next, so Im sure that doesnt work very well. With the kind of crap you would inhale in a workplace like that, Im sure lung damage wouldnt be the cause of that rule.


----------



## WilsonRoa (Dec 20, 2010)

Here at work, one of the reasons they implemented the no smoking policy was because too many people were taking smoke breaks plus their hour lunch. And it wasn't fair because if my wife was 5 min late from work, she got yelled at cause she had work to do. But yet, Jane Doe takes 3 15min smoke breaks plus the hour lunch and they don't get in trouble. 

But I do agree that it may be cig smokers more than anything.


----------



## Smokin Easy (Apr 7, 2011)

I have to say that I do agree with no smoking breaks during work. I think that if you want to smoke at work do it on your own time (lunch). I'm not a cigarette smoker and work for 9 hours a day with barely taking a lunch break back in the states and that's my choice. However, there are those, as Wilson said, who are taking an hour and then some for smoking. I don't agree with this as it's cutting into the hours you are being paid to work. What I don't agree with though is banning all smokers (cigarettes and cigars alike) from applying for a job. There are plenty of jobs that I've had where smoking on the premises wasn't allowed. The smokers knew what they were getting into before they agreed to take the job and were told that if they wanted to smoke it would have to be during lunch and they would have to leave the premises. I think that's a more acceptable way of approaching it if that's the reason. 

But I have to say that I think that Strikland hits another nail on the head going towards insurance. I was talking to my wife about this and she told me that she applied for a job at a hospital in Michigan and it wouldn't allow those considered obese or smokers to apply for any of their positions due to them wanting to portray a healthy image and practicing what they preach. 

I guess before too long any of us with vices are going to have to either ban together to create our own business or be independent business owners.


----------



## fireface (Mar 20, 2011)

Some folks I work with *easily* add an hour of downtime daily with "smoke breaks." Sucks for an employer and other employees who take up the slack.


----------



## E Dogg (Mar 23, 2011)

JGD said:


> It is discrimination, but not the kind that is illegal. My bet is that they don't want cigarette smokers because they have past experience with people taking too many smoke breaks.
> 
> If you really want to job, apply, and then simply don't smoke cigars while on break.


+1:tu Yeah, most (probably close to all) employers who talk about "smoking" are referring to cigarettes. Actually anytime "smoking" is talked about or asked, it almost always means cigarettes.

I remember my Doc asked me at one of my physicals if I "smoked". At the time, I loved my herb and I said "uhhhhh, sometimes (lying) I smoke mary jane". He laughed and said "I'm not worried about that, I was talking about cigarettes"


----------



## Jeff10236 (Nov 21, 2010)

This is getting to be fairly common in healthcare, and as you fell victim to, it is starting to appear elsewhere. In most cases, the stated reason is to keep the company's healthcare costs down. In reality, I suspect it is usually because most people have come to view smokers and smoking in a worse light than they do drug users (at least marijuana). We are dirty smokers who should know better, pot smokers are harmless, other drug users are victims in so many people's minds. I can see a time, probably about 10 years off, where it will be hard for any of us to get a job unless we work for ourselves or quit smoking.

Here is most of a related post I left on another thread:



> There is a new trend going around, this kind of policy is actually permissive in comparison.
> 
> In heathcare (and coming to an industry near you- and I fear education is only one or two years away) more and more employers are banning smoking altogether. No, not what you are thinking, not on their property, but at all. They will not hire smokers anymore. Again, they will not hire smokers- they have workplace rules against smoking *at home*. Right now, most just won't hire new employees, but firing existing employees for smoking at home is only a matter of time.
> 
> ...


My, umm, "favorite" is the advocacy site "Avoiding Being Charged With 'Negligent Hiring' Practices: Don't Hire Smokers". u


----------



## Athion (Jul 17, 2010)

I would ask them to define "smoker" 1 cigarette a day? 2? 10? 1 a week? if they say "if you smoke ANY cigarettes at all, you are a smoker"... then you say, "Oh, cool, I dont smoke any, so Im not a smoker. Job plz, kkthx"


----------



## GeoffbCET (Mar 15, 2011)

Something like this happened in Calgary. A white guy was selling his house and one of the selling features he listed was that it wasn't near any colored people. All your neighbors were white. He also said: I am not selling this house to anyone but a white person. So there you go. It happens everywhere. But if you think about this, when someone asks you if you smoke and you say yes, the first thing that they think you smoke are obviously cigarettes. 

In their defense I guess one of the reasons could be that if someone was buying a yacht, that the smoke could get inside the yacht and the customer might not like it. Me personally...... smoke all you want in my yacht. I LOVE the smell of cigars.


----------



## fireface (Mar 20, 2011)

I love the smell of cigars. Not so much stale cigar smoke. But it's almost certain that "smokers" means cigarette smokers.

Though back when I was going to the CIA (school, not the agency) they had a rule in the dorms *ONLY* cigarettes were allowed, not pipes or cigars. My friends and I got busted a few times for stogies in the dead of winter.


----------



## apoplectic (Jun 3, 2010)

Its also technically not discrimination because one could always choose to quit smoking. A hell of a lot easier said than done, but it is still a life choice that is not something that one cannot control.


----------



## JGD (Mar 2, 2009)

GeoffbCET said:


> Something like this happened in Calgary. A white guy was selling his house and one of the selling features he listed was that it wasn't near any colored people. All your neighbors were white. He also said: I am not selling this house to anyone but a white person. So there you go. It happens everywhere. But if you think about this, when someone asks you if you smoke and you say yes, the first thing that they think you smoke are obviously cigarettes.
> 
> In their defense I guess one of the reasons could be that if someone was buying a yacht, that the smoke could get inside the yacht and the customer might not like it. Me personally...... smoke all you want in my yacht. I LOVE the smell of cigars.


As much as discriminating against smokers sucks, lets not get ahead of ourselves. There is a BIG difference between saying "I won't hire a smoker" and saying "I am not selling this house to anyone but a white person."


----------



## powerman659 (Jan 8, 2011)

JGD said:


> It is discrimination, but not the kind that is illegal. My bet is that they don't want cigarette smokers because they have past experience with people taking too many smoke breaks.
> 
> If you really want to job, apply, and then simply don't smoke cigars while on break.


 +1
Or maybe in the past they had alot of cigarettes laying around and going in to the water


----------



## GeoffbCET (Mar 15, 2011)

JGD said:


> As much as discriminating against smokers sucks, lets not get ahead of ourselves. There is a BIG difference between saying "I won't hire a smoker" and saying "I am not selling this house to anyone but a white person."


Oh definitely true. But discriminating is discriminating. Some people are just to into themselves and their beliefs to consider the effect it could have on other people.


----------



## Zogg (Aug 31, 2010)

GeoffbCET said:


> Oh definitely true. But discriminating is discriminating. Some people are just to into themselves and their beliefs to consider the effect it could have on other people.


religion is also a choice, but people certainly think its discrimination if you're not hired for what you believe.

It's a slippery slope.


----------



## JazzItUp4u (Apr 4, 2009)

I wonder if they perform a swab test for nicotine like they do when you are applying for health insurance.. Quite frankly what you do on your own time is your business. I understand having a ban at the workplace, but I find it highly intrusive to restrict someone's legal behavior on their off time. Last time I checked it is still legal to smoke!! 

However, if some get their way.. it will only be legal to smoke within the home, under the bed blowing the smoke directly into a smoke eater..


----------



## Zogg (Aug 31, 2010)

JazzItUp4u said:


> I wonder if they perform a swab test for nicotine like they do when you are applying for health insurance.. Quite frankly what you do on your own time is your business. I understand having a ban at the workplace, but I find it highly intrusive to restrict someone's legal behavior on their off time. Last time I checked it is still legal to smoke!!
> 
> However, if some get their way.. it will only be legal to smoke within the home, under the bed blowing the smoke directly into a smoke eater..


I had a blood test done and they said they found cotinine (what nicotine metabolises into) in a very small trace in my blood, i told them i had a cigar to celebrate my friends birthday cause he was giving them out and they said "oh so you don't smoke?" nono of course not!

The other thing is.. well, I'm getting back in shape now, but at the time i still had about 8-9% bodyfat and im perfectly healthy in every way pretty much, so they didnt really care i guess *shrug*


----------



## tpharkman (Feb 20, 2010)

To be honest with you I don't consider myself to be a smoker. Enjoying cigars is a hobby. I enjoy hunting but I don't hunt for a living therefore I am not a hunter. I enjoy golfing but I suck at golf therefore I am not a golfer.

I am a person with hobbies that add to my quality of life and while my life is defined by many of the things that I enjoy doing on occasion I don't allow myself to be restricted by their labels.

I just confused myself...obviously I love typing words onto my screen but no I am not a freaking writer...lol!!!

Apply for the job and enjoy your cigars at home my brother.


----------



## Smokin Easy (Apr 7, 2011)

Zogg said:


> religion is also a choice, but people certainly think its discrimination if you're not hired for what you believe.
> 
> It's a slippery slope.


+1 agree


----------



## Cantiloper (May 1, 2005)

Yes, they can do this in about half the states -- called "Hire at Will" states or something
like that. Back in the 80s about half the states enacted laws preventing employers from 
regulating your legal off the job behavior, but the Antismokers call them "Tobacco 
Industry Laws" and worked to stop them from spreading.

And also yes, they can do swab tests, blood tests, or, if they really want to get picky, 
hair nicotine tests that can record your smoking behavior stretching back for years if 
your hair is long enough. I've heard of at least one case where some guy got fired for 
smoking a cigar at his daughter's wedding. :/

I sent the following off just a couple of days ago regarding the news that the state of 
Washington is considering allowing "cigar bars" again:

===

I fully agree that cigar enthusiasts should have the right to open a "cigar bar" where they 
and their friends could gather and with only fellow cigar lovers as employees. 

The only conceivable objection would be that they might be discriminating against 
nonsmokers. However, antismokers have worked hard in many states to promote the right 
of employers to hire only nonsmokers. Legally it clearly follows that a cigar bar should 
then have the right to hire only cigar smokers who might even enjoy an occasional cigar 
themselves while working at the bar. 

What sane person could object to such a thing? 

Of course the same reasoning is just as applicable to those who would like to open a bar 
for pipe smokers. And, heaven forfend, bars even for those terrible, horrible, incorrigible, 
and ever-so-personable cigarette smokers. 


Funny how people's attitudes can change so drastically over minor details, isn't it? 

===


----------



## Hermit (Aug 5, 2008)

It's one thing to have a non-smoking workplace,
it's a whole other thing to tell employees what
they can do on their own time. That ain't right.


----------



## tobacmon (May 17, 2007)

Looksy what "smoke em if you got em" wrote---LMFAO

Smokers May Face Hiring Bans - ABC News


----------



## Cantiloper (May 1, 2005)

Tobacmon, regarding your link to that ABC story from last November, people have absolutely no concept of how their thinking and attitudes have been engineered and manipulated on this issue. You'll see in that article how John Banzhaf plays the game.

The trick of trying to create a future by pretending it's inevitable is also a propaganda trick. It combines elements of "The Big Lie" with the "Happy Bandwagon Fallacy." Everyone likes to feel as though they belong to nice, safe majority -- no one wants to stick their head up and take a risk. So if you tell folks "Oh, this is what will be happening and everyone loves it." then people will be inclined to adopt that attitude/belief for themselves no matter how false it is. If you've got the sort of power/control over the public microphone that "Tobacco Control" does with its 800 million dollars a year you can go a long way toward making it stick. Very sad. 

You can see some of the technique at work with the "Smoke Free Movies" people and their claims that parents everywhere are sickened or angry at the smoking in Rango or Avatar or MTV. Hmm... ok, I can't link to it here yet, but if you go the TheTruthIsALie dot com (if it's not OK to refer to something in this way, my apologies and feel free to delete this) and read Lie #2 to see more on the idea.

Removing smokers from movies, jobs, etc is an important part of the overall denormalization campaign that was first developed in the 90s as an outgrowth of the 1975 "World Conference On Smoking And Health" where the shift in antismoking emphasis from smokers' health to targeting the concept of secondhand smoke harming their families occurred. The "protect the workers" emphasis didn't really kick in until the late 80s when no one was taking the idea of wisps of smoke in bars and restaurants affecting customers seriously.


----------



## .404 Jeffery (Apr 23, 2011)

You need to just come work at my office. There is around 300 people and I'd say about half smoke cigarettes. Seemed like a job requirement when I started working there. 

I have however interviewed at a place that straight up asked in my interview if I smoked. I don't smoke cigarettes (and didn't smoke cigars at the time), so said no (and still would today, despite the cigars). His response was they found people who smoked took too many smoking breaks which cut into their productivity. Can't really argue with that logic as I know it's true. For the casual cigar smoker though, it's not an issue. Just say "no" and don't offer them any cigars if they come over for dinner or bring any to enjoy at work.


----------



## Cantiloper (May 1, 2005)

Careful Jeffrey: you don't want to devote yourself to a new job only to be fired for failing a drug test on the basis of a slightly elevated cotinine level or be the victim of someone reporting having seen you smoke a cigar at a family gathering or on a golf course. 

- MJM


----------



## Smokin Easy (Apr 7, 2011)

As the article stated this is a very slippery slope. Are they going to start denying work to single people next? Single people are more likely to have multiple partners and therefore increase their chance of contracting an STD. This could significantly increase their overall healthcare costs esp. if the person contract a disease like herpes or HIV which they will have the rest of their lives. 

Extreme example but my point is when is enough enough. Didn't our forefathers come to America becuase they were tired of being told how to live their lives?


----------

